The commissioner has announced that

Answer choices

1. A

   Different Flaw1% picked this

   Representing the school board, Marcia Barthes presented to the school’s principal a list of recently elected school board members. Since only an elected member

   Combining these two facts, Ms. B acted as rep for the school board. + Act as rep for school board → elected member we can infer Ms. B is an elected member. The only flaw here is that the list we're saying she appears on is a list of recently elected members. We know she's an elected member, but we don't know for sure that she's a recently elected member. However, that's not the same as a Whole to Part flaw.

   1%
2. B

   Different Flaw13% picked this

   Alan Caldalf, who likes being around young children, has decided to become a pediatrician. Since the one characteristic common to all good pediatricians is

   This is committing the Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, in which an argument provides a conditional premise but then the author applies that conditional rule in some illegal backwards or negated fashion. We have a rule that says Good pediatrician → like young children And this argument is saying, "Since Mr. C likes young children, he will be a good pediatrician". That is an illegal reversal, but not the Whole to Part flaw we're looking for.

   13%
3. C

   Different Flaw11% picked this

   Jorge Diaz is a teacher at a music school nationally known for the excellence of its conducting faculty. Since Mr. Diaz has recently been

   This is sort of committing the Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, in which an argument provides a conditional premise but then the author applies that conditional rule in some illegal backwards or negated fashion. We wouldn't naturally think of the first sentence as a conditional, but if we wanted to, it would be saying, Conducting faculty → excellent teacher And this argument is saying, "Since Mr. D is an excellent teacher, then he must be part of the conducting faculty". That is an illegal reversal, but not the Whole to Part flaw we're looking for. Had the argument said, "The faculty at school X is known for its excellent teaching. Mr. D is part of the faculty at school X. Thus, he is undoubtedly an excellent teacher.", that would better match the Whole to Part move.

   11%
4. D

   Correct47% picked this

   Ula Borg, who has sold real estate for Arcande Realty for many years, undoubtedly sold fewer houses last year than she had the year

   Why this is right

   Correct This is giving us our Whole to Part move: because person X is part of a group that had trait A, then person X must have trait A. Because Ula is part of a group (Arcande Realty) that had trait A (sold fewer houses last year than in the previous year), Ula must have trait A (Ula must have sold fewer houses last year than in the previous year). Because Khalid is part of a group (Amlec Panel) that had trait A (reasonable and fair), Khalid must have trait A (reasonable and fair).

   Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   47%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match28% picked this

   The members of the local historical society unanimously support designating the First National Bank building a historical landmark. Since Evelyn George is a member

   This is pretty tempting, because we do move from a premise about a group to a conclusion about an individual. But because we're told that the group (the local historical society) unanimously voted in favor of building the landmark, there wouldn't be any Whole to Part flaw, because every member of that group did vote in favor. The flaw here would be a different one, assuming that if someone gave landmark status to one building they would surely give it to a different building as well.

   28%